"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
> At 09:01 AM 7/26/01 +0200 Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLBD/BGM/SVM/SGM wrote:
>> Well, technically speaking, the US is only one party removed from becoming a
>> one-party system.
> Not until you consider that each Party has support of nearly 50% of the
> American people,
That is certainly not my impression. Almost everyone I know votes
the way that they do because they do not want the _other party_ in
power - not because they approve of the party (or even candidate)
that they vote for. Picking the 'lesser of two evils' does not
constitute 'support'.
If your statement were true the two parties would not have passed
ballot access laws that make it very very hard for any other party to
have a chance of getting elected. Nor would they attack proportional
representation - as if having political representation that you
actually supported was somehow a 'bad thing'. Far too many people
feel disenfranchised after an election because once again the
candidate that they felt was the most tolerable lost, and the person
who won is someone that they can't stand. Politics in the U.S. would
be greatly improved if people had a chance to be represented by
politicians they supported.
> and most of those Party see sharp distinctions between the
> two parties, such that they are *very* unwilling to support the other.
You've spoken harshly of the Democratic party on many occasions.
Many of those criticisms I substantially agree with....however there
is no way that I would vote for the current incarnation of the
Republican party because in my view they advocate worse things for
this country than the Democrats do. That I am less willing to vote
Republican than I am to vote Democrat does not mean that I support
the Democratic party.
regards,
christopher
--
Christopher Gwyn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
